Housing precarity

Abstract

This paper puts forward the relevance of the concept of precarity in the investigation of the housing conditions of migrants. With this aim, the article presents an inductive journey, anchored in the analysis of the roots of migrant housing problems in Italy. Specific attention is paid to the connection of causal factors internal to the housing system (e.g. the shortcomings of the public housing system, the marginality of the private rental market, and the spread of illegal renting) with the functioning of public institutions, demonstrating that the housing precarity of migrants in Italy is institutionally constructed, maintained and shaped. Subsequently, the reflection lands on the notion of precarity; use of said term – which is usually confined to the analysis of the labor market − is extended to the field of housing. Four main epistemological dimensions of the concept of precarity are identified and explored: i) the centrality of the political and institutional creation of precarity; ii) the intersection of personal attributes and structural forces, of local and global causes; iii) the understanding of sectoral problems as part and parcel of an ontological condition of risk and uncertainty; iv) the indication of precarity as a potential point of departure for collective political agency, in particular among the disparate groups which − despite being marginalized by neoliberal exploitation − are not represented by traditional working-class organizations. The paper concludes with a note on migrant housing in pandemic times.

Keywords:

• housing
• migration
• refugees
• precarity
• policies
• Italy

Acknowledgements

This article is the result of the combined research activity undertaken by the two authors; therefore, they must be considered both as first-authors. The fieldwork from which the excerpts of the interviews are taken has been conducted by Senyo Dotsey during his PhD research supervised by Francesco Chiodelli. All writing, reviewing and editing has been conducted by the two authors together, even if the theoretical part of precarity and the sections on housing can be ascribed mainly to Francesco Chiodelli, while the portion of the paper on migration policies and problems can be ascribed mainly to Senyo Dotsey. We are grateful to Maurizio Ambrosini (University of Milan), Audrey Lumley-Sapanski (University of Nottingham), Silvia Aru (Politecnico di Torino), Magda Bolzoni (University of Turin) and Jonathan Darling (Durham University), together with the anonymous reviewers and City’s editorial board for their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript – although any errors are our own and should not tarnish their reputations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 There are significant differences among migrant subgroups. For instance, Chinese households tend to live in their own homes more often than others (on average about a third of the households). Filipinos, on the other hand, are less often the owners of the house in which they live (just 12.1 percent), since, being mostly specialized in the professions of care and personal assistance, they are often employed full time directly in the home of their employers and live there (ISTAT 2018).

2 Access to public housing occurs through rankings compiled at a municipal level, which prioritizes the more disadvantaged households.

3 Working conditions impact on housing insecurity in a second way: they affect the legal status of migrants and, consequently, their ability to access certain forms of housing (e.g., migrants without a regular residence permit cannot rent accommodation in a legal way).

4 What ceased in the 1980s is illegal building on agricultural land by the poor, in the framework of intense domestic migrations. However, the overall phenomenon of illegal housing (e.g., second homes built by middle-income groups) did not stop. See Chiodelli (2019) and Chiodelli et al. (2021) for an overview on illegal housing in Italy.

5 See Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, no. 286, article 40 (available at: https://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/deleghe/98286dl.htm)

6 In December 2108, the SPRAR system was abolished by the right-wing government. Later, in 2020, it was reintroduced by the following centre-left wing government and it is currently still in place.

7 If a migrant leaves the accommodation center without a formal request (e.g., for medical reasons), s/he loses his/her place.

8 Milan’s MayDay parade was a political parade organized from 2001 until about 2015 in Milan by a network of political and social actors of the radical left (e.g., squatted social centres, radical left parties, grassroots trade unions). It was born in opposition to the demonstration of the confederal trade unions on Labour Day, with the aim of giving voice and visibility to the subjects of precarious work. It has always seen a wide participation (several tens of thousands of people), especially young people. On the wave of the success of the MayDay Parade in Milan, a European network was created in 2004, which replicated the event in several European cities (e.g., Barcelona, Paris, Berlin, Vienna).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Senyo Dotsey

Senyo Dotsey is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Social and Political Sciences Department at the University of Milan. Email: [email protected]

Francesco Chiodelli

Francessco Chiodelli is an Associate Professor in the Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning at the Università degli Studi di Torino and director of OMERO – Interdepartmental Research Center for Urban Studies. Email: [email protected]